1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8785A218F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:52:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACA56D6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:52:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:52:20 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1554421943;
bh=vEHs43tXf52ZZcuZnFnvZ3MLdvu+SWgTum1vBKHePzM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=cC7qOa3kI/w1J0kjC7aA2RmOrSdC243Tye0tFxEtogkbCJxs6J06ZT1Nx/ABJXNpM
oS0B9VOst6nkI5WIhAd9AtMHiK/3/XIlV+il+bU6K0czW4yiCS1XyWirpRDisRhVJP
UEeJNLz2KZ52Fv4wmKG6KmOSgTJzQq+766YEqLZo=
To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <TF9WSGU6njZqgOyJF5-m1gYMwfgUCStjUV-IpRuX67w1Z6jL2Tdarr6PCOUO1vFb9hz_jWnbe_5Tg8E_a9iyPeXIY_iJUf9YN8u9xB4SC90=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1cfa2e9-69e4-ee02-4c10-23b2b1a30e00@gmail.com>
References: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com>
<d1cfa2e9-69e4-ee02-4c10-23b2b1a30e00@gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 03:19:01 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:52:26 -0000
Good morning Aymeric,
> What if the smart contract platform(s) disappear?
>
It is still possible to recover the funds, *if* you can convince all partic=
ipants of some "fair" distribution of the funds.
You do this by all participants simply signing with their participant keys =
and taking the first branch of the script.
This branch does not require the participation of the smart contract platfo=
rm, at all.
If all participants can agree to the result of the smart contract without d=
ispute, then they can exit the platform even after the platform disappears.
Now of course there will be participants who will not cooperate in such a c=
ase, for example if they were doing some betting game and "lost".
But at least it gives the possibility of doing so, and it will not be as ma=
ssive a loss.
Indeed, if the smart contract platform code is open source, it may be possi=
ble to set up another implementation of the smart contract platform.
And it would be possible to at least try to convince all participants to sw=
itch to that new platform (again, via the "as long as everybody agrees" esc=
ape hatch).
Again, this is not possible with current federated sidechains, or Ethereum =
(if Ethereum fails, all ETH becomes valueless).
> The proposal induces a very centralized system, to my knowledge all of
> existing sidechains whether on bitcoin or ethereum are centralized,
> except lightning (if we forget that someone must watch what others are
> doing when you are on a trek in Nepal)
I would not lump together Lightning with sidechains.
Indeed, this design moves things closer to true offchain techniques (as in =
Lightning) than to sidechain techniques.
So while centralized, it is less centralized than a federated sidechains.
> Now I don't get why a sidechain should be a blockchain on top on another
> one (given also that we can't consider bitcoin or ethereum as
> decentralized today, so the path might be long for the sidechains...),
> the latest is used to store the final state, the former does not have to
> store forever the intermediate states, then it could just use a
> decentralized system (not necessarilly blockchain-like) to store the
> intermediate states and maybe be a distributed escrow
>
> I know, easy to say, please do it (why not), now the fact that
> sidechains claim to be decentralized or that they will be is just
> misleading people (that's not the case of your proposal but it does not
> say what happens if the platforms go down)
Perhaps it can be a next step.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
